Cloying, oft-carbonated alcoholic beverages (apparently they're known as "alcopop," though I refuse to use that word, because it sounds more like a weird new music genre than a beverage) are under great scrutiny in Maryland: are they beer or liquor? Yesterday, Governor Martin O'Malley decided to hold off on signing a bill that would categorize the fruity drinks as beer, a move that rattled the liquor industry. Liquor lobbyists think the drink should be sold as beer, but others (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving members) disagree, saying putting malt liquor drinks sold alongside beer in convenience stores will encourage underage drinking and driving.
Another sticking point is the tax: currently, the drinks are taxed like beer at 9 cents per gallon, whereas liquor is taxed as $1.50 a gallon, meaning a higher revenue for the state.
The position of Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, who first ruled that the drinks should be considered liquor because they are distilled spirits, is best summed up by his quote: "They are no more beer than hot chocolate is," He said.
Now there's something to ponder: hot chocolate beer.
A fraking amazing Battlestar Galactica cake
Iced Tea 101
Pierogies + cheese + onions + kraut = Parmageddon!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-25-2008 @ 1:36PM
Rachelle said...
"Now there's something to ponder: hot chocolate beer."
Young's Chocolate Stout. Enough said.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:35PM
nick said...
Patrick: In the US, Mike's (and any alcopop) is malt-based. Which ought to make it, regulatory- and tax-wise, beer, without question. As I understand it, many states have laws such that selling a bottled cocktail containing distilled liquor would prevent it from being sold alongside beer, which is why Mike's doesn't contain vodka in the US, as it does in Canada.
This is really a nonsense claim the AG makes; sweetened, flavored beer is still beer, repellent as it may be.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:35PM
Adriane said...
I don't get why putting these drinks next to beer will encourage any more underage drinking and driving than just beer alone would....
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:36PM
Patrick said...
The "alcopop" label exists to align them with "pop" beverages (or "soda," as it's called in some places). "Malternatives" doesn't apply, since most of them aren't malt-based or in any way beer-related. Most, like Mike's Hard Lemonade, for example, are vodka-based. The concern is that they're primarily marketed and formulated to appeal to young drinkers. They're high in sugar and typically employ vodka to make sure the drinker gets the most alcohol content with the least amount of alcohol flavor. Some think that this promotes unhealthy attitudes towards alcohol, and that's why they don't want it sold in regular convenience stores side-by-side with beers.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:36PM
Courtney said...
They certainly aren't liquor. The are malt beverages with little alcohol... treat them as beer.
Have we found a cure for cancer yet? Why is this on someone's priority list?
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:36PM
Jon said...
Ignoring the issue of what they're made of, these malternatives (better than "alcopops"?) are carbonated, cold, in individual cans/bottles, and about 5% abv. From a legal perspective, they should be treated as beer. They certainly aren't liquor.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:41PM
Rachelle said...
"Now there's something to ponder: hot chocolate beer."
Young's Chocolate Stout. Enough said.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 2:44PM
kilteddude said...
In the US they are all malt beverages at around 5% (Jack Danials drinks, Smirnoff, Mikes, etc) they are therefore beer. I prefer the one's with Vodka when I decide to drink one, and if they are going to be taxed as such, they should be allowed to sell the liquor based ones here. I'm not 100% sure about the laws here in MD, but I know in many states pre-mixed cocktails can not be sold
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 10:19PM
Mike said...
Always amusing when people are so sure about something they really don't know much about.
This is one of those things where people need to realize that just because the beverages are made with a certain type of alcohol where you live, doesn't mean it's the same everywhere. Also, if you haven't actually read the label you might not know what you're talking about.
Mike's Hard Lemonade: Malt in the US, Vodka in Canada, Smirnoff Ice also. ( Actually type of alcohol varies across multiple countries )
The Smirnoff Ice web site for the USA describes it as a "Premium Malt Beverage". If you tell the site you're in the U.K. it's described as made with Vodka.
Perhaps Maryland has a special deal to get the Vodak based versions, but then again maybe those politicians are just idiots spouting what someone else told them without spending 5 minutes to verify.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 10:55PM
Henry said...
They encourage underage drinking because they're cheap, sweet and don't taste like beer. Since I find them ghastly I frankly don't care what they're labeled as but think charging a higher tax on them should be permissible. Logic being that if you don't like beer (or wine) and do like these abominations you're probably underage. Why not price them out of the market?
Reply
4-27-2008 @ 1:50PM
Bernie B said...
It always comes down to the tax man, doesn't it?
Liquor, hands down.
Reply
4-27-2008 @ 11:06PM
Mike said...
It has less to do with the tax man than it does to do with idiots.
Smirnoff Ice in the U.S. is beer plus sugar. That makes it liquor? Only in the twisted minds of MADD or politicians trying to suck up to them.
Reply
4-28-2008 @ 12:58PM
Big John said...
"...malt liquor drinks sold alongside beer in convenience stores will encourage underage drinking and driving."
I've never seen malt liquor drinks sold alongside liquor here in MI. Working at a liquor store and then a convenience store, also having been in one multiple times per week, it's already next to beer here.
It's a really silly argument.
Reply